D&D 5E Where We've Been and Where We Might Be Going (or, What I Think WotC Is Doing)

[Urriak Uruk]

" - If the artwork or lore hasn’t withstood the test of time, we can update or discard it."

One could make the argument that phlogiston is largely derivative to the Astral, and should be discarded. I do not interpreted this line as specifically tied to the example of "Slut Street" and other awful naming.

 

[Parmandur]

One could make the argument that phlogiston is largely derivative to the Astral, and should be discarded. I do not interpreted this line as specifically tied to the example of "Slut Street" and other awful naming.

We'll see soon enough: I'm betting on the Phlogiston staying.

 

[overgeeked]

"We decide, based on our understanding of the game’s history and audience, what artwork or lore to pull forward, what artwork or lore needs to change, and what artwork or lore should be buried so deep that it never again sees the light of day. We have a couple guiding principles:"

" - If the artwork holds up or the lore has been true in every past edition of the game, we think twice about changing it.

" - If the artwork or lore hasn’t withstood the test of time, we can update or discard it."

"The number of eyes on a stock beholder has been consistent throughout D&D’s history. No need to meddle with perfection, I say. On the other hand, if you’re familiar with old maps of Waterdeep, you might recall that one of its seedier avenues was named Slut Street. When we updated the map for Waterdeep: Dragon Heist, we gave that street a new name. The old name was never good to begin with and does not withstand the test of time."

D&D Canon | D&D Studio Blog | Dungeons & Dragons

In this D&D Studio Blog, Chris Perkins describes the D&D Studio's position on canonicity.

dnd.wizards.com

So how does that inform the Spelljammer setting? It was basically a one and done in that it only really existed in 2E. They mentioned it in other editions, but it never really was updated...before...hopefully...now. I could easily see them flatly saying "Crystal Spheres and the Phlogiston hasn't withstood the test of time, so we're changing it".

In the 3X magazine update, they dropped the phlo and crystal spheres, hard.

In 4E they used spalljammers as ships that sailed the astral sea and could travel the planes. Nary a mention of the phlo or crystal spheres.

In 5E they've mentioned spelljammers a few times. And flying through space. But never once the phlo or crystal spheres.

So in the four editions that have even mentioned Spelljammer, only one has used the phlo and crystal spheres, so far, and three have not. Two of them have relegated spelljammers to sailing the astral and being planar vessels. That doesn't give me hope for a return of the phlo or crystal spheres. It actually makes me more convinced that ever that it will be astral sailing ships with planar gates.

 

[Parmandur]

So how does that inform the Spelljammer setting? It was basically a one and done in that it only really existed in 2E. They mentioned it in other editions, but it never really was updated...before...hopefully...now. I could easily see them flatly saying "Crystal Spheres and the Phlogiston hasn't withstood the test of time, so we're changing it".

In the 3X magazine update, they dropped the phlo and crystal spheres, hard.

In 4E they used spalljammers as ships that sailed the astral sea and could travel the planes. Nary a mention of the phlo or crystal spheres.

In 5E they've mentioned spelljammers a few times. And flying through space. But never once the phlo or crystal spheres.

So in the four editions that have even mentioned Spelljammer, only one has used the phlo and crystal spheres, so far, and three have not. Two of them have relegated spelljammers to sailing the astral and being planar vessels. That doesn't give me hope for a return of the phlo or crystal spheres. It actually makes me more convinced that ever that it will be astral sailing ships with planar gates.

They have mentioned the Crystal Spheres, at least, in 5E.

 

[overgeeked]

They have mentioned the Crystal Spheres, at least, in 5E.

Yeah? I must have missed it. Where?

 

[Parmandur]

Yeah? I must have missed it. Where?

In Eberron, of all places: the Ring of Siberys is theorized to be cracks in the Crystal Sphere, with Dragonshards being partnof the Crystal Sphere falling to the surface.

 

[Parmandur]

So, Perkins made a Star Trek reference in regard to thh UA:

 

[overgeeked]

In Eberron, of all places: the Ring of Siberys is theorized to be cracks in the Crystal Sphere, with Dragonshards being partnof the Crystal Sphere falling to the surface.

Huh. No wonder I didn't spot that. Happen to have a more precise location to read about it?

 

[S'mon]

One could make the argument that phlogiston is largely derivative to the Astral, and should be discarded. I do not interpreted this line as specifically tied to the example of "Slut Street" and other awful naming.

It sounds exactly the kind of thing that happens IRL. London used to have a c*nt street for the exact same reason.

 

[teitan]

My humble predictions for 2022:

Monsters of the Multiverse (a given)
Spelljammer
Dark Sun
Far Realms/aberrant-inspired adventure arc
Anthology of Critical Role adventures

I think Dragonlance will be coming in 2023, but I hope it’s sooner.

Critical Role will be publishing their own material as with the already announced update of the Tal'Dorei book. WOTC won't be doing it now that they've established Derington Press.